The rules are gone: Trump’s Iran strike reshapes global power

Trump’s strike on Iran signals a shift toward a more volatile world order, where power increasingly overrides restraint, writes Gerry Sont.

THE WALL. The tariffs. The kidnapping. Greenland. And now — the assassination of a foreign leader.

U.S. President Donald Trump appears increasingly unrestrained — unshackled from convention, untempered by advisers, unchained from the normal guardrails of governance.

For many watching from afar, the question is no longer whether the world is destabilising, but how far we are from the brink. World War III no longer feels like dystopian fiction but more like a headline waiting to be printed.

Only days ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the BBC that Putin has started World War III. If that is so, then Trump is now pulling up a chair at the same table.

Cloud war: Iranian drone strikes hit Gulf data centres

Iranian drone strikes on Gulf data centres show the cloud’s physical infrastructure is becoming a new target in modern conflict.

The assassination and subsequent attack in Iran were met by celebrations by the Iranian community in Hyde Park and by anti-Israel protesters chanting “death to the IDF” in Melbourne’s CBD.

But why now? We were told last year that Iran’s bunkers had been neutralised — that nothing remained. So why escalate now?

David Smith, Associate Professor of American Politics and Foreign Policy at the University of Sydney, explains:

Trump was threatening to attack Iran during the protests in December and January, but there are reports he was dissuaded back then by both Israel and Arab states. Israel wanted more time for military preparation, as did many of Trump's advisors in the U.S.

American media is suggesting that when intelligence reports showed there would be a large gathering of Iranian leaders at Ayatollah Khamenei's compound on Saturday morning, Trump and others decided they should take advantage of that to launch a ‘decapitation’ strike.

A pre-emptive decapitation strike is a tactic associated with Israeli military doctrine — used effectively in the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor, and the 2007 destruction of Syria’s suspected nuclear facility. The logic is brutal but simple: remove the head and the body falters.

But was it regime change or something else? In the hours after the attack, Trump was urging Iranians to rise up and seize control of the government. That, however, already appears unrealistic.

Religious warfare rhetoric emerges in conflict with Iran

As the Iran conflict escalates, religious rhetoric – from claims of divine missions to apocalyptic prophecy – is increasingly shaping the language and politics of war.

Smith continues:

It's often hard to follow Trump's exact reasoning because it changes so much. In the hours after the attack, it was all about regime change. Now he's talking about ending Iran's nuclear program and severely limiting its military capabilities. And then there are suggestions he would like a Venezuela-style situation, where someone else from the regime takes over, but is more willing to cooperate with the U.S. Again, not very realistic.

Russian President Vladimir Putin quickly condemned the assassination as ‘a “preplanned and unprovoked act of armed aggression” against a sovereign state’. The irony is unmistakable. Smith believes Putin’s condemnation is designed to emphasise what Moscow calls Western hypocrisy over Ukraine.

This attack on Iran also creates a convenient precedent for Chinese President Xi Jinping, who may now argue that great powers act first and justify later. Numerous analysts have warned that sustained U.S. operations in Iran could deplete critical ammunition stockpiles, potentially limiting America’s capacity to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

For decades, the United States has been regarded as the world’s policeman. That perception is shifting. Dr Emily Crawford, Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney, argues:

“The U.S. now has a diminished role to play in world security due to the policies of the Trump Administration. Increasingly, middle powers are starting to pivot away from the U.S. given the destabilising impact of recent decisions in Venezuela and Iran, and the hyperbole around Greenland.”

Surely Trump is now as reckless as Putin?

JEFF MCMULLEN: The price we pay for not learning from history

On a historic night in Tehran, almost half a century ago, Jeff McMullen witnessed the inability of leaders to fully grasp the treacherous paths of alliances and armed conflicts.

Crawford responds:

“I think U.S. presidents have always utilised the tools of office to eliminate people they see as threats. It’s just that Trump is more blatant and openly unapologetic about it, which does bring him closer to Putin. The difference is Putin tends not to own these acts and prefers to disguise them as accidents.”

Two international principles are now under strain. Comity – the mutual respect between sovereign states – depends on restraint and recognition of sovereignty.

Perfidy, under international humanitarian law, refers to betraying protected status during armed conflict, such as feigning surrender or misuse of protected symbols.

If indirect peace talks were underway in Oman at the time of the strike, as reported by Al Jazeera, critics will argue this represents a profound breach of diplomatic good faith. Whether the assignation meets the strict legal definition of perfidy is debatable — but politically, the perception is corrosive.

There are two ways to interpret this moment. The world has just become significantly more dangerous, or Trump – volatile, ambitious and seemingly unchained – has decided that the rules binding others do not bind him.

Regardless, Putin and Xi Jinping have been put on notice — there is another wily player at the table of global avarice.